The High Court allowed a father’s appeal against Circuit Court orders requiring him to pay €1,200 a month for his son’s support and a €500,000 lump sum to help the child’s mother buy accommodation. It replaced the orders with a €1,200 monthly maintenance payment and an order that the father pay half of vouched speech therapy expenses if they become necessary.
Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan delivered the judgment on 5 February 2009 in an appeal from orders made on 26 November 2007. The proceedings concerned the guardianship and maintenance of the child, identified as P., who was born in October 2000. The father’s wife participated as a notice party.
The mother had sought financial provision under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 and other family law legislation. She argued that the Act gave the court power to order a lump sum for a home for her and the child. The father and his wife disputed that interpretation.
The judge held that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction under section 11 of the 1964 Act to order the father to pay €500,000 for accommodation for the mother and child. He also refused the mother’s separate housing claim under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1995 because the Civil Bill had specified section 11 as the basis for that claim and had not been amended.
The court did not decide whether section 42 could ever support a lump sum for a non-marital child. It rejected a separate request for a lump sum in this case, finding that the monthly maintenance awarded was sufficient in the circumstances. It also rejected the mother’s claim for a €2,750 carer’s allowance to be added to the monthly payment.
In setting maintenance, the judge considered the parents’ financial circumstances, earning capacity, property and responsibilities towards other dependent children. The judgment recorded evidence that the mother’s singing income had increased and that the father’s assets had declined in value since the Circuit Court hearing. The judge set maintenance at €1,200 per month and ordered the father to pay half of any vouched speech therapy expenses, monthly, if therapy became necessary for the child’s speech difficulties.
The judgment states that the appeal was allowed and the Circuit Court order discharged, with the replacement maintenance and speech therapy provisions. It does not order a home purchase payment.